Ethics of Euthanasia

[juney34]

In the light of the news regarding the late Dutch teenager who passed away this past week (Link to an article: https://www.politico.eu/article/noa-pot ... -anorexia/)

I wanted to discuss the ethics of euthanasia. Personally, I believe that it should be allowed only after all other methods for solution have been attempted. In many cases of euthanasia, those who choose to do it usually have a terminal illness and prefer to end their life instead of suffering through it. In the case of what happened with the Dutch teenager, Noa, she requested for a euthanasia but was rejected by the 'end of life' clinic because she was too young, and was not yet a fully developed adult. Thus, she voluntarily refused to eat and drink.

The laws surrounding such a permanent act is humane, and strives to protect live when there is hope. What are your thoughts on euthanasia for those who are suffering physically or mentally? Should they be handled differently?

[Sy Borg]

My first thought is that we currently have 7,709,423,200 people on the planet.

If people want to go that badly then let them go. A few hundred more more born as I wrote this post.

[juney34]

Those were my thoughts as well, there are so many human beings. Throughout history, we're known for destroying much of the living planet, as well as other species... I wonder why people are against euthanasia

[h_k_s]

My first thought is that we currently have 7,709,423,200 people on the planet.

If people want to go that badly then let them go. A few hundred more more born as I wrote this post.

That would be a good mathematical heuristic Greta sure.

[h_k_s]

In the light of the news regarding the late Dutch teenager who passed away this past week (Link to an article: https://www.politico.eu/article/noa-pot ... -anorexia/)

I wanted to discuss the ethics of euthanasia. Personally, I believe that it should be allowed only after all other methods for solution have been attempted. In many cases of euthanasia, those who choose to do it usually have a terminal illness and prefer to end their life instead of suffering through it. In the case of what happened with the Dutch teenager, Noa, she requested for a euthanasia but was rejected by the 'end of life' clinic because she was too young, and was not yet a fully developed adult. Thus, she voluntarily refused to eat and drink.

The laws surrounding such a permanent act is humane, and strives to protect live when there is hope. What are your thoughts on euthanasia for those who are suffering physically or mentally? Should they be handled differently?

Anyone under 25 years of age which is before the brain is fully developed will have a hard time making any kind of responsible decision on anything.

After 25, I would be inclined to allow anyone for any reason to do euthanasia to themselves. I would not make it conditional on anything.

Before 25, definitely not.

My philosophical reasoning is that no one should tell anyone else what to do. This concept comes from Native American philosophy.

[Alias]

What are your thoughts on euthanasia for those who are suffering physically or mentally? Should they be handled differently?

If it's good enough for a dog, it's good enough for a human. Suffering is exactly the same: if you wouldn't want to endure it yourself, don't force anyone else to endure it. This isn't complicated: it's compassion.

[juney34]

Anyone under 25 years of age which is before the brain is fully developed will have a hard time making any kind of responsible decision on anything.

After 25, I would be inclined to allow anyone for any reason to do euthanasia to themselves. I would not make it conditional on anything.

Before 25, definitely not.

My philosophical reasoning is that no one should tell anyone else what to do. This concept comes from Native American philosophy.

Yes, I agree with this. Though, many in the world (mostly the religious) have been misinformed by inaccurate news and are against euthanasia...

[h_k_s]

What are your thoughts on euthanasia for those who are suffering physically or mentally? Should they be handled differently?

If it's good enough for a dog, it's good enough for a human. Suffering is exactly the same: if you wouldn't want to endure it yourself, don't force anyone else to endure it. This isn't complicated: it's compassion.

… Dog or cat. Or horse or pony. Agreed.

[Maffei]

The controversies go beyond the compreehensible case of having a terminal disease. What laws allow or not end up being an expression of its society. The very fact that we discuss here what is better or what is not reflects this human propension to extend what we think is best to everybody.

So in a certain point the discussion is not only about "let's see what is fair in this specific case" and becomes "how much free will society can agree or allow".

Nevertheless I think discussing this sounds like a desdain to the girl's suffering. Treating her as the object of an broader and supposedly more important issue is like saying "Wait, don't kill yourself till we find the best solution for you!". Her sorrow couldn't wait and she is ending her life herself.

I'm afraid too that this way of adressing the issue is one more distraction of the sexual abuse topic -- the cause! The same occurs with the topic of abortion in rape cases. Many people want to rule about abortion without looking under the perspective of who was raped. Rationality turns to be very cynic sometimes.

[Felix]

Maffei: "Nevertheless I think discussing this sounds like a disdain to the girl's suffering. Treating her as the object of a broader and supposedly more important issue is like saying "Wait, don't kill yourself till we find the best solution for you!". Her sorrow couldn't wait and she is ending her life herself."

You've framed this as an authoritarian appeal, but it may instead be a compassionate one. We know that depressed people, being ruled by their emotions, tend to have a lopsided view of themselves and their problems. So why not help them step back and take a broader view of their life and options? Many people who survive suicide say they are glad they did, that they made an impulsive mistake.

"Her sorrow couldn't wait"

Well then, let it leave, she doesn't have to go with it.

[Felix]

I meant to add....

Alias: "If it's good enough for a dog, it's good enough for a human. Suffering is exactly the same"

Actually, it's not. From my experience, animals suffer more than humans because they cannot mentally detach themselves from their experience to any appreciable degree, they are what they experience.

[Sculptor1]

I meant to add....

Alias: "If it's good enough for a dog, it's good enough for a human. Suffering is exactly the same"

Actually, it's not. From my experience, animals suffer more than humans because they cannot mentally detach themselves from their experience to any appreciable degree, they are what they experience.

First thing is that you cannot know how another suffers; neither and animal nor human.
One thing is for sure an animal having not the intellectual capacity to know the true horror of their ailment is far more capable of getting on with things.
I've seen dogs running about on three legs with utter disregard for the injuries they have suffered. My own dog whilst running through a field managed to slice off a lap of skin from her ankle exposing the achilles tendon which had lost part of its sheath. Though bleeding profusely she gladly continued to run around, and when visiting the vet was her usual friendly waggy-tailed self, as if she had no injury at all.
According to the vet, she suffers from hip dysplasia, which is evident from the way she uses her back legs. This has not dulled her keenness to run around and play, though she can suffer for it afterwards.
When she is in pain it is easy enough to sooth her with kind words and cuddles, than it could be for any adult human.

[Maffei]

Compassion means sharing other's suffering. I don't think me or you can really feel what it means to be an abused woman if we weren't abused women. It's like being based on experience in all other issues, but when it comes to decide about women and children bodies, the empiricists rapidly can understand this topic only by rational contemplation and without experiencing it. They take a distance and separate the person naming him or her with a disease.

I'm not saying you had assumed this perspective, and I don't disagree about the possibility of further gratitude of another people helping her to avoid suicide. Life is such a high value that is almost common sense to preserve it in any case.

But I just can't have a measure of what is "lopsided" if I had no clue of what means to have the abuse experience. I don't want anyone to die, but if it was me to help her, I would first of all treat her as someone who has her reasons to think this way. Her reasons are not mine, but are reasons.

To say she is out of reason opens the possibility of saying too that an abuse is not that horrible.

[Felix]

Sculptor1: "First thing is that you cannot know how another suffers; neither and animal nor human."

You've heard of empathy? Some of us have more of it than others. We were discussing terminal illness/pain, my reference to animals was with that in mind. I had a cat that died of cancer, his suffering was quite apparent to me.

Maffei: "I would first of all treat her as someone who has her reasons to think this way. Her reasons are not mine, but are reasons."

Well sure, that's a big part of understanding her and helping her to understand herself and her feelings of unworthiness and desire to die.

99 reasons
all in a line
all of them good ones
all of them... lies

- Steven Stills, Buffalo Springfield

[Alias]

So in a certain point the discussion is not only about "let's see what is fair in this specific case" and becomes "how much free will society can agree or allow".

Society allow? Depends on who's in charge, doesn't it? A society run by ideologues or an elite can't allow very much autonomy without loosing its grip on the hearts, minds and gonads of the peons.
However, a more or less democratic society, it seems to me, must allow every individual autonomy over their person. Indeed, if the question seriously arises of what somebody should permit or forbid somebody else to with their own body, that democracy is in jeopardy. (As witness Alabama)
On the other hand, a small tribe that depends for its collective survival on the welfare of its individual members requires a higher degree of cohesion; it requires voluntary submission to mutually agreed constraints, because the group is weakened by both dissent and coercion.In order to assure that voluntary co-operation, the rules have to work reasonably well for everyone. Such a society has nothing whatever to gain from denying release to an irreparably damaged member; continuing to carry them is far more costly, both in resources and emotional stress on the community.

As for the matter of other species: whatever their individual capability and inclination, if an animal depends on us, we have to make the decision regarding their treatment or termination, according to our own best judgment. Other people can make the decision for themselves - as long as they can - but there may come a point when we have to decide for a human dependent, just as we do for a pony. In either case, my rule stands:
Don't force anyone to endure what you would not yourself endure.